So, I don't debate here anymore, but I do still have arguments in the forums, and I noticed something that may end up an issue in debate, as well.

It seems that most here (particularly who vote) hold the general opinion that "dropping an argument" is a concession that weakens the opposing argument, no matter how absurd that initial argument was.

What is to prevent someone from "filibustering" a win, or in other words, presenting so many arguments, particularly those that are weak, fallacious, or absurd, that it's either uncomfortable for their opponent to approach them all (detracting from the enjoyment of the endeavor) or impossible due to character limits?

At 2/6/2013 1:06:05 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:So, I don't debate here anymore, but I do still have arguments in the forums, and I noticed something that may end up an issue in debate, as well.

It seems that most here (particularly who vote) hold the general opinion that "dropping an argument" is a concession that weakens the opposing argument, no matter how absurd that initial argument was.

What is to prevent someone from "filibustering" a win, or in other words, presenting so many arguments, particularly those that are weak, fallacious, or absurd, that it's either uncomfortable for their opponent to approach them all (detracting from the enjoyment of the endeavor) or impossible due to character limits?

Arguments are weak, fallacious, or absurd almost always turn out to be the more minor arguments in a debate, whereas the central ones tend to be the main point of contention. Whoever wins those tend to be the ones that ultimately decide how voters vote, regardless of how many more minor absurd arguments that the debater dropped

At 2/6/2013 1:06:05 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:So, I don't debate here anymore, but I do still have arguments in the forums, and I noticed something that may end up an issue in debate, as well.

It seems that most here (particularly who vote) hold the general opinion that "dropping an argument" is a concession that weakens the opposing argument, no matter how absurd that initial argument was.

What is to prevent someone from "filibustering" a win, or in other words, presenting so many arguments, particularly those that are weak, fallacious, or absurd, that it's either uncomfortable for their opponent to approach them all (detracting from the enjoyment of the endeavor) or impossible due to character limits?

Arguments are weak, fallacious, or absurd almost always turn out to be the more minor arguments in a debate, whereas the central ones tend to be the main point of contention. Whoever wins those tend to be the ones that ultimately decide how voters vote, regardless of how many more minor absurd arguments that the debater dropped

Not in my experience, nor what I've noticed in other debates.

For example, in a recent thread, I noticed that someone lost a debate because he didn't unequivocally disprove a single hypothetical out of three, despite that the rest of the arguments were argued well in his favor, and he provided the most rigorous evidence for his conclusions.

And, that wasn't an extraordinary circumstance. People literally use this clause as a defense within a debate.

"Argument was dropped by pro/con, thus, it is a concession and can no longer be approached."

I have seen that from some of the most respected debaters on the site.

At 2/6/2013 1:06:05 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:So, I don't debate here anymore, but I do still have arguments in the forums, and I noticed something that may end up an issue in debate, as well.

It seems that most here (particularly who vote) hold the general opinion that "dropping an argument" is a concession that weakens the opposing argument, no matter how absurd that initial argument was.

What is to prevent someone from "filibustering" a win, or in other words, presenting so many arguments, particularly those that are weak, fallacious, or absurd, that it's either uncomfortable for their opponent to approach them all (detracting from the enjoyment of the endeavor) or impossible due to character limits?

Arguments are weak, fallacious, or absurd almost always turn out to be the more minor arguments in a debate, whereas the central ones tend to be the main point of contention. Whoever wins those tend to be the ones that ultimately decide how voters vote, regardless of how many more minor absurd arguments that the debater dropped

Not in my experience, nor what I've noticed in other debates.

For example, in a recent thread, I noticed that someone lost a debate because he didn't unequivocally disprove a single hypothetical out of three, despite that the rest of the arguments were argued well in his favor, and he provided the most rigorous evidence for his conclusions.

And, that wasn't an extraordinary circumstance. People literally use this clause as a defense within a debate.

"Argument was dropped by pro/con, thus, it is a concession and can no longer be approached."

I have seen that from some of the most respected debaters on the site.

At 2/6/2013 1:06:05 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:So, I don't debate here anymore, but I do still have arguments in the forums, and I noticed something that may end up an issue in debate, as well.

It seems that most here (particularly who vote) hold the general opinion that "dropping an argument" is a concession that weakens the opposing argument, no matter how absurd that initial argument was.

What is to prevent someone from "filibustering" a win, or in other words, presenting so many arguments, particularly those that are weak, fallacious, or absurd, that it's either uncomfortable for their opponent to approach them all (detracting from the enjoyment of the endeavor) or impossible due to character limits?

Arguments are weak, fallacious, or absurd almost always turn out to be the more minor arguments in a debate, whereas the central ones tend to be the main point of contention. Whoever wins those tend to be the ones that ultimately decide how voters vote, regardless of how many more minor absurd arguments that the debater dropped

Not in my experience, nor what I've noticed in other debates.

For example, in a recent thread, I noticed that someone lost a debate because he didn't unequivocally disprove a single hypothetical out of three, despite that the rest of the arguments were argued well in his favor, and he provided the most rigorous evidence for his conclusions.

And, that wasn't an extraordinary circumstance. People literally use this clause as a defense within a debate.

"Argument was dropped by pro/con, thus, it is a concession and can no longer be approached."

I have seen that from some of the most respected debaters on the site.

Can you link the debate so we can see for ourselves?

Hahaha, incidentally, you were a major part of that thread. You may not agree with him in that thread, and I may not have, either, but my opinion of that debate I linked in that thread still stands.